• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

From legislative machine to representative forum? Procedural change in the New Zealand parliament in the twentieth century John E Martin* This article analyses procedural developments in the New Zealand parliament in the twentieth century to assess the shifting balance between government and parliament. A previous article in this journal documented how the government began to move to centre stage by the late nineteenth century. 1 This shift was consolidated in the first half of the twentieth century. A similar transition was evident in the British House of Commons and in other parliaments as the powers of the central state were extended: ‘A traditionally obstructive [legislative] procedure ... was transformed into a procedure which facilitated constructive criticism of the financial and legislative proposals of politically responsible governments, whilst severely restricting the opportunities of private Members to legislate.’2 This change was associated with a diminishing role for backbench private members and a strengthening of political party organisation in parliament. In New Zealand this came about at the turn of the twentieth century as the decayed factional system of politics was replaced by that of parties. (Previously political leaders assembled loose groups of supporters — factions — which gave them majorities in the House of Representatives. This form of politics broke down during the depression of the 1880s.) Associated with this change there was a gradual tacit recognition that the nature of obstruction of business should change as both governing and opposition parties considered that their work in parliament was orientated more towards the business of governing (and winning elections) than to demonstrating parliamentary independence. * Dr John E Martin is Parliamentary Historian for the NZ parliament. This article is a companion piece to ‘From talking shop to party government: procedural change in the New Zealand parliament, 1854–1894’ which appears in the Autumn 2011 Australasian Parliamentary Review. Full citation in footnote 52 of that article is John E Martin, ‘The House: New Zealand’s House of Representatives, 1854–2004’, Palmerston North: Dunmore Press, 2004 Australasian Parliamentary Review, Spring 2011, Vol. 26(2), 35–52. 36 John E Martin APR 26(2) As executive government came to the fore in New Zealand the pattern of law- making changed. In the nineteenth century the success rate of bills was relatively low at between half and two-thirds of all bills, while acts which did get onto the statute book were short. On average legislation remained about five pages in length during the nineteenth century. During the depression years of the 1880s governments did not introduce as many bills into parliament. Then, in the 1890s the reformist Liberal government engaged in a burst of legislating. The number of bills increased but the proportion passed, including those of government, declined to little more than half of total bills.3 Private members’ bills remained significant. With party government taking hold in the early twentieth century, the extent of legislation diminished as governments sought to pass more compact and concerted legislative programmes. The length of acts began to increase from the time of the first world war, to reach ten pages into the 1930s. The proportion of all bills introduced which passed also increased but this was offset overall by the continued existence of numbers of private members’ bills (that now had little chance of passing). From the mid 1930s, with the establishment of two-party government, private members’ bills almost completely disappeared and government measures were virtually guaranteed to get through. The expansion of the welfare/interventionist state in New Zealand from mid- century resulted in more complex legislation. The length of acts rose from ten to fifteen pages by the 1970s. From the late 1980s, governments passed fewer laws but the legislation got even longer — the average length of acts these days is about twenty-five pages. Procedural reforms were associated with these changes and with wider forces which themselves were in part a reaction against the tightening of executive government control.4 The long road to closure The legacy of members’ freedom to speak at will was hard to shake off despite the introduction of time limits on speeches in 1894 by Liberal leader and Premier R.J. Seddon. Closure of debate was resisted for many years. Obstruction while bills were in Committee of the Whole became the usual tactic. The 1894 standing orders allowed members to speak for ten minutes four times on each question (clause) con- sidered.5 Sittings lengthened and sessions stretched out even though the size of the House was substantially reduced in the 1890s from 95 to 74 members as a result of depression retrenchment. The government found it difficult to get its bills through. The Old-age Pension Bill was a centrepiece for opposition resistance.6 In 1897 89 amendments were made to the bill and 945 speeches delivered while it was in Committee. In 1898 during another stonewall with the bill in Committee more than 1,400 speeches were made. Premier Seddon began to press for outright closure. In 1900 he got the Standing Orders Committee to agree to it, together with other measures to assist with government business. The House would not have it and Spring 2011 Procedural change in the NZ parliament in the twentieth century 37 discharged the report. In following years the government trialled morning sittings but this proved too disruptive of committee business.7 Seddon tried again in 1903 but both the Liberal Party caucus and the House rejected closure. In the face of a humiliating defeat, Seddon had to tell his supporters to vote against his own motion! The Evening Post congratulated parliament on resisting his ‘tyranny’. Sir Joseph Ward, who succeeded Seddon as Liberal leader and Premier in 1906, did not drive the House in the same fashion. He wanted civilised daytime sittings, did not support closure and avoided late nights. 8 This lengthened sessions further without getting through the same amount of business. The second session of 1909 actually extended until after Christmas as the result of a last minute stonewall and the 1910 session was the longest on record. Ward had to introduce Monday sittings early on in sessions and made the House take new business after 12.30 p.m. William Massey and the Reform Party (formed in 1909 out of the previous oppos- ition grouping in the House) came to power in 1912. There was little procedural change under Reform (1912–28). Two new practices did advance government business even if the standing orders did not change. A ferocious stonewall in Committee in 1913 provoked the Chairman of Committees to rule numerous mem- bers out of order for irrelevance and repetition.9 (A ‘tedious repetition’ rule had entered the standing orders in 1894 but had not been taken advantage of.) Future Chairs of Committees would use the same approach to bring obstruction to an end while the House was in Committee. Urgency on the grounds of ‘the public interest’, slipped into the standing orders in 1903, was gradually taken advantage of.10 From 1911 it was used for imprest supply bills — legislation sanctioning interim authority for government expenditure. During the first world war a range of legislation was dealt with under urgency. After the war Reform remained uninterested in procedural reform despite perennial concern over time wasting. The three-party political system — that had developed before the war and would persist into the early 1930s — made it difficult. The governing Reform Party vied with the Liberals and both sought to limit the gains made by the rising Labour Party. The 1920 Standing Orders Committee wanted to revise procedure during the recess but Massey prevented it from meeting. 11 Concerns remained through the 1920s, with Labour Party obstruction in 1927 leading to calls for closure. This session proved the longest on record to that time.12 Ward’s United Party (as the Liberals had become) won the election of 1928 and he formed a government in alliance with the Labour Party. He now had his chance to reform procedure. The Standing Orders Committee canvassed other parliaments. In Australia, New South Wales and Queensland outlined their experience of daytime sittings.13 The committee did not adopt daytime sittings in 1929 but it simplified and modernised the language of the standing orders and substantially reorganised them. It rejected closure (by now common in other British Empire parliaments), however, considering that reduced time limits on speeches were sufficient. Address- in-Reply speeches were reduced to half an hour and those in Committee to five minutes. New limits of between five and 15 minutes were introduced for a wide 38 John E Martin APR 26(2) range of speaking opportunities. The principle that government business took precedence was now stated formally and taking urgency was set out in more detail. Standing orders could be revised simply by motion while their suspension was made easier. The nineteenth-century sentinel guarding all standing orders before it had finally been banished! Urgency became common for major pieces of legislation as the country went into depression. The government claimed it was the only way in which it ‘could have some control over the business of the House’ as sitting hours did not reduce and sitting beyond midnight remained common.14 George Forbes, who replaced Ward as Prime Minister in 1930, used it frequently. The government convened an early session in March 1931. Forbes announced he would take entire weeks to get the emergency measures through, including Mondays and Saturday mornings. Labour declared it would resist the legislation to the bitter end. The focus was the finance bill which introduced wage and salary cuts.15 After urgency failed to help, and more than seventy divisions stretching over nearly one hundred hours and more than ten days, Forbes asked the House to agree to closure.

Load more

  18

Copy Link